CJS 305 - Exam 1 Gizzi

sole rationale for good faith exception post 1984 (us v Leon)

SOLE rationale for exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.

US v. Kyllo

The use of a device by the government, which is not generally used by the public, to obtain evidence from inside a home is a presumptively unreasonable search without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. -Thermal imaging Doctrine= expectation of privacy, use of tech devices to enhance senses not available to public use S/R- minimal expectation of privacy in the home

Katz v. US

This 1967 Supreme Court case prohibited illegal eavesdropping and extending the zone of privacy to include the home, office, person, and immediate public arena. Doctrine= reasonable expectation of privacy S/R- 2 prong test

application of reasonable expectation of privacy in white

White appealed the conviction, claiming the conversations were recorded without his permission, that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the conversations were recorded without a warrant, violating his rights

third party doctrine & Jones

any documents that include third parties you do business with are subject to search without a warrant

who has power of judicial review and power to declare a law unconstitutional?

appellate courts

Colorado v. Wolfe

convicted by a State court of conspiring to commit abortions based upon evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure clause

who has power to interpret the constitution through judicial review? is this stated in the constitution itself?

courts have power, not stated

reasonable expectation of privacy

- over-rules trespass doctrine - 4th amendment protects PEOPLE not places - what you knowingly expose in public is not protected, but what is in public that you seek to remain private MIGHT be

how does US v. Jones impact what is a search?

-GPS surveillance SCALIA re-establishes the trespass doctrine and acts as if it was never over-ruled -it was still considered one because intimate details could be revealed based on where he were going just like if they had gone into his home -explains that Katz supplements, but does not replace the baseline of protection against physical intrusions of constitutionally protected areas

Aguilar-Spinelli Test - how it elevated the rules

-Two prongs test that test the reliability of the informat and reliability of the information - more protective of individual rights than the totality of circumstances approach

appeal as of right

-appeal from a trial court to an intermediate appellate court -the appellate court has to decide the case

trial courts

-court of fact -primary purpose= fact finding -determine guilt/innoncence

courts of original jurisdiction

-courts of first instance

appellate courts

-courts of law and error correction -correct errors in trial courts -decisions "make law" (have precedential value)

exclusionary rule evolution from week (1914)

-evidence illegally obtained by federal officers was excluded in federal court

discretionary appeals to state & US supreme court

-most state supreme courts have discretion over whether to hear an appeal -US Supreme Court has a completely discretionary jurisdiction -these courts set own agendas

Harlan's two prong standard in establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy (from Katz)

-the individual has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy -if society is prepared to recognize this expectation as reasonable

how many cases that get sent to Supreme Court are decided by it

.008%

Mapp three rationales

1. deterrence of police misconduct 2. constitutional rights 3. judicial integrity

key components of crime control

1. efficiency 2. speed 3. uniformity 4. informality 5. finality

Olmstead v. US

1928, the government can tap your phone without a warrant. Doctrine= trespass doctrine S/R- physical intrusion

Jones v. US

Anyone who has the right to be a premise and is the object of a search has standing. Doctrine= trespass doctrine, GPS tracking S/R- invades privacy because intimate preferences can be seen by tracking someones movements.

IL v. Gates

Doctrine= totality of circumstances S/R= use this instead of tips, more reliable

US v. Leon

good faith exception to the exclusionary rule Doctrine= good faith exception S/R= deterrence of police misconduct

Draper v. US

held that information from a reliable informer corroborated as to accuracy of the informer's decryption of the accused and of the presence at a particular place, was sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest without a warrant. Doctrine= probable cause S/R- can you use hearsay as probable cause in an arrest?

how do courts make a law

judicial decisions establish precendents doctrine of stare decisis

Illinois v. gates

new standard; totality of circumstances

third party doctrine & carpenter

saw the cell phone carriers as third parties and that you shouldn't expect any privacy in your phone records

constitution is both ____ and _____

substantive; procedural

draper standard

that a search is not made legal by what comes up in it

who assigns the majority opinion

the most senior justice

who can change the constitution?

the people, thru amendment process

application of reasonable expectation of privacy in kyllo

the technology wasn't accessible to the public at that time, they would have had no other way of getting that information without a warrant

brandeis dissent - 4th amendment about privacy, what does he think?

thinks there is a right the be let alone

evolution of standards (probable cause)

DRAPER. -----> Aguilar / Spinelli. --->. GATES

Riley v. California

Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. Doctrine= need a warrant to search a phone S/R- because of privacy interests involved

Mapp v. Ohio

Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court). Doctrine= exclusionary rule S/R- 1 deterrence of police misconduct, 2 constitutional rights, 3 judicial integrity

US v. White

Held that a person who invites someone into his or her home assumes the risk, not only of being betrayed, but also of being recorded. Doctrine= false friend doctrine S/R= can't protect you if you confide in someone and they rat you out